Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute over promotion to the post of Sports Officer in the Rajasthan State Sports Council. Respondent No. 1, Uma Dadhich, was appointed as Coach Grade-III in 1986 and later promoted to Coach Grade-I. In 2009, nine persons were promoted to Sports Officer, but she was not. She filed a writ petition challenging the promotion of Respondent No. 2 for vacancies of 2003-2004. The Single Judge dismissed her petition, but the Division Bench reversed, holding that the criteria of seniority-cum-merit introduced in 2006 could not apply to vacancies prior to that year. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The Court held that there is no vested right to promotion, only a right to be considered under the rules existing on the date of consideration. The Court distinguished Y.V. Rangaiah v. Sreenivasa Rao, noting that it applies only when rules require completion of promotion within the relevant year. Rule 9(4) of the 2006 Rules does not mandate applying rules of the vacancy year. The Court clarified that if Respondent No. 1 had been promoted in the meantime, that promotion would not be affected.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Applicable Criteria - No vested right to promotion, only right to be considered under rules existing on date of consideration - Held that criteria introduced in 2006 cannot be applied to vacancies of 2003-2004, but the High Court erred in directing reconsideration based on earlier criteria because the principle is that the rules as they exist on the date of consideration apply (Paras 2-3). B) Service Law - Promotion - Vacancies of Earlier Years - Rule 9(4) of Rajasthan State Sports Council Service Rules, 2006 - Does not require filling vacancies based on rules of the year of occurrence - Held that the direction of the High Court was unsustainable (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the promotion criteria for vacancies occurring prior to the introduction of the Rajasthan State Sports Council Service Rules, 2006 should be governed by the rules existing at the time of vacancy or at the time of consideration
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of High Court set aside; no order as to costs; clarification that if respondent No. 1 has been promoted in the meantime, that promotion will not be affected
Law Points
- Promotion criteria applicable as on date of consideration
- not vacancy year
- No vested right to promotion
- only right to be considered under existing rules
- Rule 9(4) of Rajasthan State Sports Council Service Rules
- 2006 does not mandate applying rules of vacancy year
